EXPLOSIVE: Grassley has Damning Emails on ATF Scandal

The other shoe may be dropping in the Project Gunrunner scandal. CBS's Sharyl Attkisson is reporting that they involve 'damning' emails. They involve correspondence between a gun shop owner and the ATF in which the owner expressed great concern about selling weapons to straw purchasers. Not only that, but the same gun shop owner actually expressed concern later because he said he had a friend who was a Border Patrol agent. The tragic irony is that the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry appears to be the catalyst for this whole program being exposed.

Via CBS:

Damning, newly-obtained emails show that a key gun shop owner made explicit concerns in writing last year in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' "gunwalking" scandal.

Starting in late 2009, ATF allegedly directed an undetermined number of Phoenix-area gun shop owners to go ahead with sales of thousands of assault rifles and other weapons to suspicious buyers. Insiders claim ATF knew the buyers were connected to Mexico's drug cartels, but let the guns "walk" onto the street anyway in a misguided attempt to obtain intelligence. ATF and the Justice Department have denied that.

Investigators from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) obtained the emails this week.

In an April 13, 2010 email, the unnamed gun shop owner told ATF he was worried how he'd be viewed if the guns he sold ended up in the wrong hands.

"We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to bad guys," the gun shop owner wrote to ATF Phoenix Supervisor David Voth. The gun shop owner asked for a letter of understanding to "alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."

ATF Supervisor Voth tried to reassure the cooperating gun shop owner. "I understand that the frequency with which some individuals under investigation by our office have been purchasing firearms from your business has caused concerns for you... However, if helps put you at east we (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into [in] detail."

Be sure to read Grassley's letter to Eric Holder HERE. The email attachments that blow holes through the credibility of the ATF and DOJ are likely in Grassley's possession thanks to Asst special agent in charge, George Gillett, who has come forward to talk with Grassley. More on Gillett HERE.



Read it all.

My Column on Killeen, TX Scandal

There is a burgeoning scandal brewing in Killeen, TX and it involves the City Manager being given $750,000 to leave his job. Some time ago, Connie Green magically negotiated a contract that would allow him to walk away from his gig with $555,000. So how did he get another $195,000 added to his severance package? While this story is likely to further the anger of Tea Partiers, there's a very positive angle to it that involves a private citizen who is taking action.

There's much more to this story. Check it out at Red County:

Killeen City Manager Cleans Up at City's Expense

Imagine having a job where you've secured a contract that says if you are terminated, you will receive $555,000. Then imagine having the gall to demand $750,000 to go away quietly with the caveat that you will not sue your employer. In the private sector, such a scenario might involve criminal charges for attempted extortion. It would also likely involve another termination – the individual who authorized such a contract. In the private sector, sound business decisions are a prerequisite for survival. In the public sector, sound business decisions are often as foreign as profitability.

In the city of Killeen, TX – which is adjacent to Fort Hood – such a scenario is playing out right now with the City Council. The stockholders taxpayers there are incredulous because City Manager Connie Green was given $750,000 of their money to go away. The extra $195,000 was ostensibly to ensure that Mr. Green didn't exercise any of those nasty little litigious clauses in his contract. It also appears to match his annual salary.
The decision to buyout Green came down to a City Council vote of 4-3. Oddly enough, the controversy involved allegations that the Council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act. After a closed session, Green submitted the terms of his departure which did not match the already obscene, taxpayer funded contract he had secured for himself. Killeen is a city of 127,000 people. The cost of Green's termination represents slightly more than $6 for every resident.

Enter Jonathan Okray. He is proving that private citizens can do far more than wait for election day to make a difference. Okray submitted an affidavit to the City Secretary requesting a recall election for all seven City Council members. The good news for Okray is that while the legwork is taxing, the low voter turnout in the last election makes his goal of 1,050 signatures for each council member quite achievable.

Okray hit the ground running on April 5th. He has until May 4th to get a total of 7,350 signatures from registered voters in the City of Killeen to force all seven recall elections. That figure is arrived at by multiplying the total number of voters by 51%; there were only 2,057 people who voted in the last election. As of April 14th, Okray is already well over the halfway mark in each case.

The Killeen Daily Herald reported on April 12th that the council voted down calls for an outside investigation into the buyout by a vote of 3-2. Interestingly, this time the Mayor, Tim Hancock's vote was needed to break the tie as three members were absent. Okray is gathering signatures for Hancock's recall but it is a bit of a steeper climb.
The taxpayers of Killeen aren't just being stonewalled by the city relative to how their money was spent; they're being stonewalled in the face of legitimate questions about why it was so grossly misspent.

The names of the Killeen City Council members who are facing an increasingly likely recall election are: Mayor Pro Tem Scott Cosper, Kenny Wells, JoAnn Purser, Ernest Wilkerson, Larry Cole, Billy Workman, and Juan Rivera.

Jonathan Okray can be reached at 254-368-8966 or jokray.jo@gmail.com

Hope you read it all.

Did Obama Lie to go to War in Libya?

When the uprising in Libya started, it could have qualified as a 'crisis' based on the Obama administration standard - and response. We all know what this administration thinks of crises; they are things to be exploited and never allowed to go to waste. Now it's being discovered that the reasons given by Obama for going into Libya were likely far more hyperbolic than they were based in reality, especially in light of applying his reasons for getting involved there compared to other countries. Those reasons were humanitarian.

It's looking more and more like the Obama administration got involved in Libya for different reasons.

Via Alan J. Kuperman at the Boston Globe:

EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.

Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi … could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.

I keep coming back to a very simple reality. Obama's longtime Chicago friends - Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright - love Muammar Gadhafi. The Libyan leader is one of the driver's of Farrakhan's gravy train. Why would Obama oppose them in order to support the rebels under false pretenses?

Could it have something to do with why Obama supported the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, which borders Libya to the east? The rebels in Libya have the support of the same group that's filling the power vacuum in Egypt - the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama has people in the White House right now with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Rashad Hussain is one of them.

Read it all.

Video: Fox's Eric Bolling vs. Union Supporting Mayor

Eric Bolling was the guest host for a soon-to-be departing Glenn Beck and this interview helped him if he's got his eye on Beck's time slot. This was a nice fiery exchange between Bolling and the mayor of Lansing, MI Virg Bernero. Bernero is a union-supporting Democrat who could not deny that his city is under water when it comes to public sector union salaries vs. revenue. In a bottom line world, that's really all there is to say - unless your name is Virg Bernero. In yet another example of liberal illogic, he blamed companies for taking the jobs away and shipping them overseas.

Obviously lost on Bernero is the reason why those companies did that - UNIONS. Then, when Bolling asked Bernero how he's going to deal with the shortfall, good ol Virg made reference to increasing the mileage rates. That means raising property taxes. It's literally an insane option. The property values in Michigan have plummeted. Why? Because companies have left the area, making it depressed. So, why on earth would you raise property taxes? In Bernero's world, people will not move out of the area if he raises their property taxes. Good luck with that, Virg.

Democrats are simply ignorant of economics; pride and arrogance simply will not allow them to admit it. One day, reality will force them to admit it and that day is upon us.

Via MediaIte:

Video: Taxing Rich at 100% won't Cover this Year's Deficit

Barack Obama is one of two things. He is either incredibly devoid of intelligence when it comes to economics or he wants to destroy the American economy and is deceiving people into believing a lie. The mantra coming from the Democrats - and led by Barack Obama - is that the way to cure our debt and deficit problems is to 'tax the rich.' Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) puts it into perspective here. Remember, Obama's standard for 'rich' is anyone making $250,000 per year. Scott puts forth the idea of taxing everyone who makes more thatn $100,000 per year at 100%.

The results still don't add up. If you needed further evidence that Washington has a spending problem and not a revenue problem, this should be the final nail in the proverbial coffin.

Via CNS News.



If that didn't do it for you, take a look at the ignorance of Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), who says we need 'vision' while advocating taxing the rich because we need 'revenue.'